2021-04-15 13:31:59 -05:00

199 lines
11 KiB
Plaintext

(word processor parameters LM=8, RM=75, TM=2, BM=2)
Taken from KeelyNet BBS (214) 324-3501
Sponsored by Vangard Sciences
PO BOX 1031
Mesquite, TX 75150
There are ABSOLUTELY NO RESTRICTIONS
on duplicating, publishing or distributing the
files on KeelyNet except where noted!
October 30, 1993
NEWMAN6.ASC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This file shared with KeelyNet courtesy of George W. Dahlberg P.E..
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From "Worlds whithin Worlds" The Story of Nuclear Energy
Volume 1 By Isaac Azimov 1972
Pg. 47
The Law of Conservation of Energy
"We have gone as far as we conveinently can in considering
the intertwining strands of the atom and of electricity. It is
to me to turn to the third strand - energy.
To physicists the concept of "work" is that of exerting a
force on a body and making it move through some distance. To lift
a weight against the pull of gravity is work. To drive a nail
into wood against the friction of its fibers is work.
Anything capable of performing work is said to possess
"energy" from Greek words meaning "work within".....
The forms of energy are so many and so various that
scientists were eager to find some rule that covered them all and
would therefore serve as a unifying bond. It did not seem
impossible that such a rule might exist, since one had been found
in connection with matter that appeared in even greater variety
than energy did.
All matter, whatever its form and shape, possessed mass, and
in the 1770s, the French chemist Antoine Laurent Lavoisier (1743-
1794) discovered that the quantity of mass was constant. If a
system of matter were isolated and made to undergo complicated
chemical reactions, everything about it might change, but not its
mass. A solid might turn into a gas, a single substance might
change into two or three different substances, but whatever
happened, the total mass at the end was exactly the same (as
nearly as chemists could tell) as at the beginning. None was
either created or destroyed, however, the nature of the matter
might change. This was called the "law of conservation of mass".
Naturally, it would occur to scientists to wonder if a
similar law might hold for energy. The answer wasn't easy to get.
It wasn't as simple to measure the quantity of energy as it was
to measure the quantity of mass. Nor was it simple to pen up a
quantity of energy and keep it from escaping or from gaining
additional quantity from outside, as it was in the case of mass.
Begining in 1840, however, the English physicist James
Prescott Joule (1818-1889) began a series of experiments in which
he made use of every form of energy he could think of. In each
case he turned it into heat and allowed the heat to raise the
temperature of a given quantity of water. He used the rise in
Page 1
temperature as a measure of energy. By 1847 he was convinced that
any form of energy could be turned into fixed and predictable
amounts of heat; that a certain amount of work was equivalent to
a certain amount of heat.
In that same year, the German physicist Herman Ludwig
Ferdinand von Helmholtz (1821-1894) advanced the general notion
that a fixed amount of energy in one form was equal to the same
amount of energy in any other form. Energy might change its form
over and over, but not change its amount. None could either be
destroyed or created. This is the "law of conservation of
energy"."
________________________________________________________________
Its interesting how a "rule" which might exist became a
"LAW" of the conservation of mass, and a conviction and a
"general notion" became the "LAW" of conservation of energy. The
scientists of the 1700s and 1800s had crude instruments compared
to our present day. They did well for the time but our present
day scientists still quote the "LAWS", perhaps because it's
easier than thinking. GWD
_________________________________________________________________
Page 56
"The sun's mass was known and its rate of energy production
was known. Suppose the sun's mass were a mixture of hydrogen and
oxygen and it were burning at a rate sufficient to produce the
energy at the rate it was giving it off. If that were so, all the
hydrogen and oxygen in its mass would be consumed in 1500 years.
No chemical reaction in the sun could account for its having
given us heat and light since the days of the pyramids, let alone
since the days of the dinosaurs......
In 1854 Helmholtz came up with something better. He
suggested that the sun was contracting. Its outermost layers were
falling inward and the energy of this fall was converted to heat
and light. Whats more, this energy would be obtained without any
change in the mass of the sun whatever.
Helmholtz calculated that the sun's contraction over the
6000 years of recorded history would have reduced its diameter
only 560 miles - a change that would not have been noticeable to
the unaided eye. Since the development of the telescope, two and
a half centuries earlier, the decrease in diameter would have
been only 23 miles and that was not measurable by the best
techniques of Helmholtz's day.
Working backward, however, it seemed that 25 million years
ago, the sun must have been so large as to fill the earth's
orbit. Clearly the earth could not then have existed. In that
case, the maximum age of the earth was only 25 million years.
Geoligists and biologists found themselves disturbed with
this.......
Yet there seemed absolutely no way of accounting for the
sun's energy supply. Either the law of conservation of energy was
wrong (which seemed unlikely), or the painfully collected
evidence of geologists and biologists was wrong (which seemed
unlikely), or there was some source of energy greater than any
known in the 19th century, whose existence had somehow escaped
mankind (which also seemed unlikely).
Yet one of those unlikely alternatives would have to be
true. And then in 1896 came the discovery of
radioactivity..............
Page 2
Pg. 72
The German physicist Alfred Heinrich Bucherer reported in
1908 that speeding electrons did gain mass just the amount
predicted by Einstein's theory.........
Pg. 73
The energy equivalent of 1 gram of mass.... would keep a 100
watt light bulb burning for 35,000 years.
It is this vast difference between the tiny quantity of mass
and the huge amount of energy to which it is equivalent that
obscured the relationship over the years. When a chemical
reaction liberates energy, the mass of the materials undergoing
the reaction decreases slightly - but very slightly.......
No instrument known to the chemists of the 19th century
could have detected so tiny a loss of mass in such a large total.
No wonder, then that from Lavoisier on, scientists thought that
the law of conservation of mass held exactly......
It was no longer quite accurate to talk about the
conservation of mass after 1905 (.....). Instead, it is more
proper to speak of the conservation of energy, and to remember
that mass was one form of energy and a very concentrated
form........ When a uranium atom broke down through a series of
steps to a lead atom, it produced a million times as much energy
as that same atom would release if it were involved in even the
most violent of chemical changes........"
________________________________________________________________
Newmans Energy Machine
In one of the forms of the energy machine of Joseph Westley
Newman, 55 miles of heavy copper conductor are wound in a huge
inductance coil. There are several naturally occuring isotopes of
copper. Given a high frequency burst of high voltage electricity
into this inductor, is it that inconceivable that an isotopic low
(on the atomic scale) energy release takes place, or heaven
forbid, some actual total conversion of some of the copper atoms.
After having seen his machines working in close proximity at a
Senate Subcommittee meeting in Washington DC several years ago, I
find it hard to believe that they don't "work" due to violation
of the above "laws" of conservation of mass or energy.
Compliments of George W. Dahlberg P.E.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have comments or other information relating to such topics
as this paper covers, please upload to KeelyNet or send to the
Vangard Sciences address as listed on the first page.
Thank you for your consideration, interest and support.
Jerry W. Decker.........Ron Barker...........Chuck Henderson
Vangard Sciences/KeelyNet
--------------------------------------------------------------------
If we can be of service, you may contact
Jerry at (214) 324-8741 or Ron at (214) 242-9346
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 3